1. Clark was harmless enough whereas you could make the case that Mulroney did a ton of damage. Mulroney was a really tough one to rank for that reason. I can see how some right wingers voted for Joe Who ahead of Trudeau (they felt Trudeau did a lot more harm than good).

2. Almost every ranking I've ever seen has St.Laurent ahead of Diefenbaker. I don't think that's a stretch at all.

3. I decided to hold my verdict on Paul until his time as PM is done. So far...I dunno...he's likely in the 11-13 range.

Chretien ahead of Mulroney? The only two policies that led to Chretien having any fiscal success were the GST and FTA. Who introduced those? Aside from maintaining the status quo by keeping all of Michael Wilson/Brian Mulroney's policies, what else to Chretien do, beside presiding over the most massive cut in health spending in 138 years, using his influence to get loans for golf courses and hotels that he owned or was related to, and allowing the most massive corruption since Sir John A. himself?

Chretien's too high - and I love the guy. Pearson and St. Laurent both have better records, even just counting the Liberal PMs in a relatively non-partisan way. Borden is also way too high; his mishandling of conscription is a terrible black mark. Thompson at 10? The guy is (cough, cough) famous for dying. I guess he's there as a marker for "unfulfilled promise". I think poor Kim really gets the short end from everyone, and yes she was a disaster for the PCs politically, but she wasn't a hideous Orangeman racist like Bowell, so I'd let her up to 19.